Pursuing travel calculated hedonism: scale development and validation

Figures & data

Figure 1. Scale development for TCH.

Scale development for travel calculated hedonism is in six stages. Stage 1 defines travel calculated hedonism from a literature review. Stage 2 generates proposed scale items and tests validity through focus groups and expert panels. Stages 3 and 4 purify and refine the scales with field studies in drinking and eating. Stage 5 validates the scale with field studies in wellness and shopping. Stage 6 tests scale measurement invariance using all four field studies.

Model fit: χ² = 110.19; df = 48; RMSEA = 0.07; CFI = 0.94; NFI = 0.90; GFI = 0.93.

Table 1. Demographic profiles (Studies 1 to 4).

	Study 1	Study 2	Study 3	Study 4
	Drinking	Eating	Wellness	Shopping
	(N = 355)	(N = 351)	(N = 330)	(N = 337)
Gender
Female	51.3	58.7	53.3	55.4
Male	48.7	41.3	46.4	44.6
Others	0	0	0.3	0
Age
20–29 years	23.4	14.3	17.6	18.4
30–39 years	35.2	26.9	40.2	27.5
40–49 years	21.1	19.1	26.2	25.7
50–64 years	20.3	39.7	9.8	19.1
65 years and above	0	0	6.2	9.2
Relationship stats
Single	36.6	29.7	26.1	31.3
In a relationship	14.1	9.1	11.3	11.6
De facto	7.3	9.1	6.5	8.1
Married	42	52	56.1	49
Working status
Full-time	58.8	50.6	72.4	56.6
Part-time	18.5	14.9	12.2	21.7
Casual	4	2.9	3.6	2.9
Not working	18.8	31.7	11.9	18.8
Occupation
Managers	23.7	19.7	31.2	24.9
Professional	20.6	21.1	15.8	21.7
Technician/associate/professional	5.1	4.6	12.2	6.9
Skilled agricultural/forestry/fishery worker	2	0	3.6	1.2
Clerical support worker	12.4	7.7	9.8	7.5
Servie and sales worker	7.3	7.7	8.9	9.2
Plant/machinery operator/assembler	2	2	2.1	0.6
Craft/related trade worker	1.4	2.9	1.8	1.7
Student	5.4	2.9	1.5	5.5
Retired and others	20	31.4	13.1	20.8
Income
Under AUD$44,000	30.5	30.3	19.1	28.4
AUD$45,000-AUD$89,999	39.3	39.1	34.9	37.7
AUD$90,000-AUD$149,999	22.9	20.3	34	23.8
AUD$150,000 and above	7.3	10.3	11.9	10.1

Table 2. Exploratory factor analysis for the TCH factors (Study 1).

Factors and scale items	Factor Loading	Eigen value	Variance Explained (%)	Cronbach Alpha
Factor 1: Planned impulsiveness		8.28	55.22	0.93
Allow myself to go on a spontaneous spree	0.75
Let loose when the mood takes me	0.83
Enjoy a gratifying binge, given the right time, space and company	0.83
Take a “controlled loss of control” approach	0.82
Go all out and cram it all in	0.83
Factor 2: Planned financial compulsiveness		1.63	10.84	0.86
Spending more than intended	0.61
Maxing out my credit card limit	0.90
Borrowing money	0.93
Factor 3: Delaying rewards		1.24	8.27	0.92
Accumulate knowledge about the vacation	0.61
Get into good physical shape	0.90
Prepare myself emotionally for the vacation	0.89
Show iron resolve in my prep for the vacation	0.88
Factor 4: Planned time/physical compulsiveness		1.07	7.11	0.91
Engaging in more physical activities than at home	0.81
Packing my schedule with things to do	0.91
Starting early for the day and/or finish late	0.86
KMO MSA: 0.84 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: 0.001

Extraction method: Principal components analysis.

Rotation method: Oblimin rotation.

Table 3. Goodness-of-fit indices for the TCH factors (Study 2).

Factors	Parameter Estimates	χ^2	df	p	RMSEA	CFI	NFI	GFI
Delaying rewards		0.28	1	0.59	0.01	0.99	0.99	0.99
Show iron resolve in my prep	0.72
Get into good physical shape	0.73
Prepare myself emotionally for the vacation	0.71
Planned impulsiveness		0.69	1	0.40	0.01	0.99	0.99	0.99
Let loose when the mood takes me	0.61
Enjoy a gratifying binge, given the right time, space and company	0.68
Take a “controlled loss of control” approach	0.83
Planned financial compulsiveness		1.54	1	0.21	0.07	0.99	0.99	0.99
Spending more than intended	0.66
Maxing out my credit card limit	0.88
Borrowing money	0.80
Planned time/physical compulsiveness		0.63	1	0.42	0.01	0.99	0.99	0.99
Engaging in more physical activities than at home	0.84
Packing my schedule with things to do	0.71
Starting early for the day and/or finish late	0.60

χ² = chi-square, df = degrees of freedom, RMSEA =r oot mean square error of approximation, CFI=comparative fit indices, NFI = normative fit index, GFI = goodness of fit index.

Figure 2. Measurement model for TCH (Study 2).

The measurement model for the travel calculated hedonism scale has a good fit and identifies four factors – delayed rewards, planned impulsiveness, planned financial compulsiveness and planned time/physical compulsiveness. Each factor is represented by three scale items.

Table 4. Composite reliabilities, average variance extracted scores and correlations of the TCH factors (Study 3).

Factors	Items	M	SD	CR	AVE	DR	PI	PFC	PTPC
Delaying rewards (DR)	3	5.26	1.20	0.82	0.62	1
Planned impulsiveness (PI)	3	5.56	0.90	0.68	0.41	0.41 (0.16)	1
Planned financial compulsiveness (PFC)	3	3.92	1.66	0.82	0.62	0.41 (0.16)	0.26 (0.06)	1
Planned time/physical compulsiveness (PTPC)	3	5.23	1.16	0.80	0.57	0.36 (0.13)	0.43 (0.18)	0.45 (0.21)	1

M = Mean, SD = Standard deviation, CR = Construct reliability, AVE = Average variance extracted.

Squared correlations in parentheses.

Table 5. Correlations between the developed TCH scale and existing scales (Study 3).

Factors	Tangney et al. (2004) Self-control	Han et al. (1991) Planned impulsive buying	Edwards (1993) Compulsive buying
Delaying rewards	0.66**	0.50**	0.54**
Planned impulsiveness	0.42**	0.59**	0.42**
Planned financial compulsiveness	0.37**	0.23**	0.62**
Planned time/physical compulsiveness	0.41**	0.40**	0.49**

*p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001.

Correlations between a calculated binge vacationing factor and a relevant existing scale in bold.

Table 6. Predictive validity of the TCH scale factors on intention (Study 4).

Regression	Standardised β Scores	p-value
Delaying rewards → Intention	0.48***	0.001
Planned impulsiveness → Intention	0.37***	0.001
Planned financial compulsiveness → Intention	0.37***	0.001
Planned time/physical compulsiveness → Intention	0.42***	0.001

* p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001.

Table 7. Measurement invariance of the TCH scale (Studies 1 to 4).

	Models compared					Model fit
Model Specification	Com-pared	Δχ^2	Δdf	p-value	Inva – riant	χ^2	df	χ^2/df	RMSEA	CFI	NFI	GFI
M1: Configural invariance	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	342.90	96	3.57	0.04	0.96	0.95	0.96
M2: Full metric invariance	M2 vs. M1	12.4	12	0.43	Yes	355.04	108	3.29	0.04	0.96	0.95	0.96
M4: Full factor variance invariance	M3 vs. M1	2.85	4	0.58	Yes	345.75	100	3.46	0.04	0.96	0.95	0.96

χ² = chi-square, df = degrees of freedom, RMSEA=root mean square error of approximation, CFI=comparative fit indices, NFI = normative fit index, GFI = goodness of fit index..

Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Han, Y.-K., Morgan, G. A., Kotsiopulos, A., & Kang-Park, J.-K. (1991). Impulse buying behaviour of apparel purchasers. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 9(3), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X9100900303

 Google Scholar

Edwards, E. A. (1993). Development of a new scale for measuring compulsive buying behaviour. Financial Counselling and Planning, 4(1), 67–84.

 Google Scholar